C'mon, vt...rub a couple of your world famous brain cells together for us here. Even without reading the article, can't you come up with just a reason or two why the headline would be true, at least in part. Give it a try...what could it hurt??

Now unlikely in coming years to see global average go below 1C anomaly without a major volcanic eruption.

So we are pretty firmly in the 1 - 2 C above pre-industrial range...a new world. And we have seen some of the destruction this brings from a series of record breaking hurricanes to record breaking wildfires...and those are just a few things in 'our' neck of the woods (US).

Furthermore, tho '17 was the second or third warmest year on record for the atmosphere (depending on which organization's data you are looking at):2017 was the warmest year on record for the global ocean, according to an updated ocean analysis from Institute of Atmospheric Physics/Chinese Academy of Science (IAP/CAS).

dohboi wrote:C'mon, vt...rub a couple of your world famous brain cells together for us here. Even without reading the article, can't you come up with just a reason or two why the headline would be true, at least in part. Give it a try...what could it hurt??

I've done that penguin flop for real once this winter already. I've got to learn to be more careful as things don't heal up like they used to. I can think of several reasons why it is unlikely to be true. For one thing the women of the world already have considerable influence either directly or through manipulating their men. And secondly they would be facing the same problem the men are which is insurmountable without cutting the worlds human population by half to two thirds and the women of the world are even less likely to do that then we men are, most women having a working motherhood instinct.

"...insurmountable without cutting the worlds human population by half to two thirds and the women of the world are even less likely to do that then we men are, most women having a working motherhood instinct."

Wow, you really have not looked at this issue at all, have you?

Every study ever done on population and empowerment of women shows that increasing the latter decreases the former.

And as you say, it is (if not quite 'insurmountable') very difficult to really reduce greenhouse gas emissions without at some point reducing population levels.

Here's just the first of many, many articles/studies that come up on the subject with a simple search:

But, oh, I forgot...your backwoods presuppositions and prejudices...and just whatever random idea happens to drift through your brain...is obviously far superior to dozens of careful studies done by people who have been working in this field for decades...

US House of Representatives: the Climate Solutions Caucus is up to 68 members...On the way to becoming a significant voting block?

The Climate Solutions Caucus is a bipartisan group in the US House of Representatives which will explore policy options that address the impacts, causes, and challenges of our changing climate. The caucus was founded in February of 2016 by two south-Florida representatives Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) and Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), who serve as co-chairs of the caucus.

“The Caucus will serve as an organization to educate members on economically-viable options to reduce climate risk and protect our nation’s economy, security, infrastructure, agriculture, water supply and public safety,” according to documents filed with the Committee on House Administration.

As most of you understand by now, I'm a skeptic about CC and AGW. I think most of the warming is quite natural, and due to continue until we reach the Climatic Optimum temperature in about 1200 years or so.

But whatever the cause, I'd like somebody to net it out for me: What is all this Climate Change and AGW hysteria intended to accomplish?

I mean, I'm speculating here. Some people like to wallow in misery like water buffaloes in a mud hole. Is that it?

Do you honestly believe that there is anything at all that would justify abandoning the burning of FF's for energy? That would necessarily involve the starvation of most of humanity, and the misery of most who remain and attempt to preserve food, cook food, and use HVAC systems powered by feeble renewable energy sources.

YES, we are going to run out of FF's to burn, first oil, then gas, then coal. I'm hoping for a miracle myself, a new source of energy to replace FF's. Failing in that (and failure does seem to be most likely) we are going to die back in great numbers, and I'm guessing, wound the Earth even more grievously with our death throes.

Kaiser you ask what this thread is about and in fact what is all the hysteria about CC and AGW is about? It is about the terrible position we as a species are in. Frankly, I see little reason for hope. But that does not mean I am wallowing in misery. I have been here now since 2013 and my objective is to flesh out the full extent of our diabolical predicament. I am afraid your position that CC is pretty much a natural phenomenon does not stand up to scrutiny. Not when scientists in mass are agreeing that CC is mostly about us causing it. Not when we are already seeing signs of the turbulent effects. The point is that while the demise of FF is something catastrophic for humanity, it will not necessarily consign us back to the stone age and even threaten us with extinction. CC does and can. This catch 22 is at the heart of this terrible dilemma. Will or Can we begin to do something to slow if not reverse this climatic apocalypse gearing up even though it would be by trying to intentionally limit and phase out FF. Can it be done. Or will we just resign ourselves to burn ever more FF, not build out any viable replacement and await the period when we have little FF available and an Earth whose climate is rapidly (geologically) veering away from a habitable zone for humans.

O, I just don't see what you hope to accomplish. Whether natural or caused by burning FF's, warming is occurring. There will in a few centuries be sea level increases of 100 feet or so, Antarctica will be covered in exposed tundra and trees again, and the equatorial deserts will have enlarged and occupied some of the current Temperate zones. This happens every Milanković cycle, and at most the warming will be mildly accelerated by burning FF's.

The great human tragedy IMHO would be running out of FF's to burn, without finding new energy sources to replace them. That's the scenario where the humans die back and do the most damage in their struggle to survive.

Again, what do you think would possibly help? Most people, even most PeakOil members, appear to be paying lip service to the idea of AGW while living unchanged lifestyles. You own a fuel burning vehicle, right? Use the electric grid? Eat produce imported from other countries?

Here is my answer to Kaiser on "Kaiser you ask what this thread is about and in fact what is all the hysteria about CC and AGW is about?"

1. It is about the end of humanity and higher forms of life on the planet earth. Though, nothing to get 'hysterical' over, at least if one accepts that this correction is GOOD and DESERVING and INEVITABLE.2. Still we cling to our current way of life and "purposely" ignore the peril, and "lie" to ourselves (Kaiser) that this cannot be true because it goes against everything I believed in all my life. Sorry about that Kaiser.3. For a realist like myself (idealist actually), I just hope we can go out with some dignity and not all screaming this can't be. I hope we can delay this catastrophic outcome so our kids have some time to absorb it before they lead the way out of their existence.4. Our only chance IMO is to slow this process down and live a good existence until that point. However, there is clearly a sizable and influential portion of humanity that likes it just as it is, mostly because they are already on top. Being top-dog is evidently in the human pyschology. I would lean towards quality of life. That human psychology thing also applies to our hubris in not wanting to give up anything we already have, including our beliefs.5. I'm just hoping we don't trash everything before we leave so that the last person will be able to appreciate what we have lost.6. Also, we are voyeurs and just want to know what's happening and even a catastrophic outcome has a real fascination for many of us

jedrider, it seems to me that everything you said results from human overpopulation, and not from CC or AGW. After all, AGW and CC are merely symptoms of too many humans on one small planet. If there were not 7.7B humans, we would not be running out of FF's, we would not have burnt so many FF's and created so many greenhouse gases, and we would not face the VERY REAL and INESCAPABLE END that comes to many of us when we run out of cheap FF energy sources to burn.

Over population is caused by natural primate instincts. We are after all, the most successful primate. Even if we had never burnt all those FF's, we might be at this same point and with the same overpopulation dilemma with a civilization powered by nuclear energy or renewables.

This is why I advocate a different solution. We are running out of space, food, water, minerals, and energy, because we have an overpopulated Earth. The solution is to find other places to live off of Earth.

In fact, I'll go even further than that. If AGW and CC are actually real, then the deadly result of these threats - the drastic dieback of the overpopulated humans, would be the beneficial result from the perspective that encompasses all Earthly species, not just humans.

dohboi wrote:Of course, GW is deadly for most other species, not just humans. So...there goes that line of argument.

Except that was not what we were talking about. I said that most people are paying lip service only to AGW/CC. They still own a fuel-burning vehicle, still use the electric grid, and still eat imported foodstuffs.

What about you? Do you really believe, or do you do those same things yourself?

KaiserJeep wrote:jedrider, it seems to me that everything you said results from human overpopulation, and not from CC or AGW. After all, AGW and CC are merely symptoms of too many humans on one small planet. If there were not 7.7B humans, we would not be running out of FF's, we would not have burnt so many FF's and created so many greenhouse gases, and we would not face the VERY REAL and INESCAPABLE END that comes to many of us when we run out of cheap FF energy sources to burn.

Over population is caused by natural primate instincts. We are after all, the most successful primate. Even if we had never burnt all those FF's, we might be at this same point and with the same overpopulation dilemma with a civilization powered by nuclear energy or renewables.

This is why I advocate a different solution. We are running out of space, food, water, minerals, and energy, because we have an overpopulated Earth. The solution is to find other places to live off of Earth.

In fact, I'll go even further than that. If AGW and CC are actually real, then the deadly result of these threats - the drastic dieback of the overpopulated humans, would be the beneficial result from the perspective that encompasses all Earthly species, not just humans.

The Devil is in the details. The population regulation valve is not selective on humans and everything else on the planet will be shut off as well. A genetic reboot of life on this planet is likely the result. Just as we see no dinosaurs today, we will see no humans in the future. Of course, some sort of life will come to repopulate the planet.

Techno-optimists just believe that technology can respond to any degree required to fix problems. If this were true we would already see evidence of such technological evolution. Instead we see denial and BAU. No, solar and wind are not enough to solve this problem. We need solutions at the energy consumption end and not just at the energy supply end. But even primitive technology such as hybrid cars are being released into the market with a 10 year delay (given the forecasts in the 1990s). Clearly, big business and big government are not in a hurry. That is why we have so much denier BS. It serves to justify inaction.

It does not matter in the least of CC/AGW deniers exist or not. The basic and inescapable problem is 7.7 billion humans (or whatever the final figure is) on a planet that dies at at accellerating pace as time passes. There is warming occurring, and it's not stopping for any reason ever as long as that many people are present. There is also the dying oceans, the disappearing topsoil, the massive rate of animal and plant extinctions, and the exhaustion of minerals and clean water and everything else we need to live.

It's not like we wouldn't still die if the warming suddenly stopped. Nor is the warming what will kill most of us. Running out of cheap and abundant FF's to burn for energy is what will kill us, because that is the one and only reason there are already 7.7 billion humans living in a place where - at the very most - 1 billion could live sustainably. FF energy enabled the overshoot, the LACK of FF's is what will kill us.

If you can't acknowledge these things, you simply cannot reason. You delude yourselves while calling ME a denier.

The overshoot population was in fact enabled by burning FF's. In that sense you are correct about the root cause of approaching Doom. But in fact the warming itself isn't even relevent, if we had the energy sources we need we could survive that.

The 1% are going to survive, BTW. They will simply accumulate enough (very expensive) FF's to survive the dieoff of the 99%, and burn them. THEY have a plan to survive, and they will. If you can't afford to do that, then you will die. But the most wealthy 1% (about 77 million) will live.

It turns out, despite its name, the Climate Solutions Caucus is a hospitable place for many members who, like Gaetz, do not seem especially concerned about global warming. The two-year-old caucus has expanded to 70 members, half of whom are Republican—and many of them have brought controversial records and a questionable commitment to advancing legislation in Congress that would protect the environment.

Its critics charge the caucus has expanded its size at the expense of its credibility, providing Republicans who have been actively hostile to government programs a low-stakes opportunity to “greenwash” their climate credentials without backing meaningful action—just in time for midterm elections.

It really doesn't matter, there is nothing that can be done. It's all over. But I don't like to see anyone get away with this kind of scam. They need to be voted out just for trying to pull this against the American people.

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.